I was glancing through a build thread and noticed that the character had high strength and low charisma. This made me reflect that charisma is often a dump stat for melee builds. I then reflected on the my personal experience with low charisma characters at the table. I usually see low charisma characters played as either obnoxious, anti-social, or hostile in some fashion.
This made me wonder- if your average person lived in a world where melee fighters (excepting certain classes like Paladins and Dragon Disciples) were not the easiest type of folk to get along with, wouldn't the citizenry start to generalize after a while?
As a player, I tend not to dump many stats if I can avoid it. I realize that not every melee character out there is going to have a charisma of 7 or 8. Further, I realize that having a Charisma of 7 or 8 doesn't automatically mean that a character is going to be unpersonable. Still, I imagine there'd be some sort of social response that would develop over time.
Yes. Average is Charisma 8 as per NPC creation game mechanics.
cheers
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't we kind of judge people like this in real life?
Suppose you walk into class, on your first day of college. On your left is a big strong guy, who plays defensive tackle for the football team. On your right is a scrawny looking guy, wearing glasses. Who do you want to study with before the test? Maybe the football player has. 4.0 and is studying nuclear physics, but a lot of people are going to assume he's a "big dumb jock".
I'm sure you get those sorts of stereotypes in a fantasy world too. "Hey, here comes another big dumb mercenary fighter. Use small words, and try not to make him angry." Or if you want to go the other way, "The guy in the wizards robes can probably curse us out in eleven different languages, but if we just hold him down and give him a wedgie, he'll be helpless to stop us!"
The average farmer has Cha 9.
No mechanical difference from 8, and not much better than 7.
No big deal.
Yes. Average is Charisma 8 as per NPC creation game mechanics.
cheers
per the SRD here are the averages: (Across the class groups...)
(Basic) (Heroic)
STR 10.4 12
DEX 11.2 12.8
CON 11.4 13.4
INT 10.8 12.4
WIS 9.8 11
CHA 9.4 10.4
So, the general population is Quicker, Tougher, and Smarter than Average (10.5 on 3d6), almost expected average for Strength, and has poor judgement and is not well liked.
* * *
If it matters, I think the NPCs should not follow strict guidelines: Not all Melees need be jerks, some can be dumb a stump, or clumsy. Not all Skill classes need to be tough, some can be wise, or charismatic. Basically, don't ADHERE to the *guidelines* as Truth. :)
This is where we note that average people are average on average, but as individuals they're usually not average. So the "average farmer" is average, but not typical.
In other words, most NPCs are not built on, say, 10 points. They're build on 3d6 points, so some farmers are just outright better than others.
Yeah. For the most part generally I'd say no.
I don't think having a high STR by itself constitutes bad npc attitudes.
The CHR stat is a separate stat for a reason.
You could have an 18 CHR and 7's in everything else and be everyone's best buddy.
You could have an 18 CHR and an 18 in STR as well and be everyones best buddy.
Only in the situation where CHR is a dump stat does it make for a negative impression and that's regardless of any other ability score.
Even CHR as a stat taken alone can mean likable for reasons ranging from 'generally cleaner, pleasant, friendly, fun, funny, engaging, kind, fit or gorgeous or whatever other reasons people are generally more likable than people with low CHR (dirty/smelly/ugly/poorly groomed/heavy/gruff/mean/creepy/depressingly pessimistic/whatever typical people 'don't like' about others, rightfully so or not ...) none of that has much to do with STR, high or low.
I have met very strong people I dont like, sure.
I don't simply assume I wont like a person for being strong.
Sure I've met strong healthy beautiful people who are right bastards.
Sure I've met foolish foppish unsmart unwise smelly slow weak heavy people who are awesome and kind and cool and pleasant and generous.
But CHR is its own stat for a reason.
I never assume a high or low stat other than chr has anything to do with how likable anyone is to an npc.
Maybe an 'individual specific' npc has a problem with strong people, sure. But never 'generally'.
Even a 7 CHA in my mind isn't 'generally super off puttingly bad.' to a degree that I think 'society would shun you'... 6 CHA might be pushing it though.
Lets see where I'd draw the line...
If 3d6 is the roll, 1/2 is below average, 3/4 is average, 5/6 is above average
Then 13 is representative of 445 at best or 661 at worst, still particularly above average.
8 could be 611, far below average in some ways, far above average in another.
7 could be representative of 223. mostly below average in at least some fashion, but average in some way.
6 is at best a 411 and at worst a 222. that could still acounts for above average in some way but for sure also possible of being distinctly below average 3 times out of 3...
So yeah. 6 to me is where the generic populace would stop 'avoiding or ignoring' and start seriously taking offense at a characters presence and a 5 means a complete lack of social graces of any kind. Of course if you have an 18 charisma and you play your character like a public nuisance I'm going to have most people either shun you anyway because you're a 'drop dead gorgeous douche' or laugh at your absurd lack of social grace.
No CHA score or 'playing in character' can overcome roleplaying a douche. Even that point of view isn't a bias I should necessarily have though. Truth be told a 5 should simply be a person that even with good intentions, still gets opposite results...ie. their kindness is seen as creepy. With that measure a 16 should be the kind of person where no matter how bad they are it's seen as fun and funny or cool even if its simply 'hahah oh you beautifully tragic person. you're horrible but you rock.'
So I appear to have a bias towards socially inadequate people who have good intentions and try hard even if they fail and a bias against people who are generally accepted or even generally loved and revered despite being essentially/resoundingly less than stellar people.
Sorry that kinda went a bit off topic.
Another way to look at it is that certain societies do equate the opposite of the OP's assertion.
In a farming community you can be socially brusk or dirty or smelly or even mean, but if you've got a good strong farming back and a good work ethic, generally that community will like you just for being a stoic strong hard workin individual even if you lack what others might see as social graces/grooming habits/sense of humor... Strength in this case can be a surrogate for charisma to an extent in a positive way instead of a negative one. In this case strength may not mean 'liked' but it can at least mean 'respected'.
I'd still rather keep the 2 attributes separate though.
This is why point buy is inherently lame.
A high charisma does not mean you are likeable. A low charisma does not mean you are dislikeable.
Ow my brain.
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
I suppose you're right, an 18 CHR could mean you have no personality, no personal magnetism, are ugly as a barrel of rent flesh, but are a uh... marvelous leader?
You can easily have a jerk with strong leadership qualities who can get people to do what he wants. "I know that guy is a total jerk/monster, but somehow when he asks me to do something for him I can't say 'no'".
I can't say I've ever ran into this combination ever in real life or in gaming or even in any movie I've ever seen... I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
Similarly, someone with low charisma can be very well liked. They just can't really convince people to do stuff and don't make a good first impression. "Oh, that's just old Tom. He's a great guy but always puts his foot in his mouth."
I think this is the scenario I'd refer to as having a high charisma. His charisma represents a likeability that isn't connected with his looks or eloquence or his commanding presence... He's just a good guy. I can see this happening quite frequently, but not with a character with a 6 in the charisma block.
Have to agree to disagree on this one I suppose. This would be the first time I've ever heard of charisma described in this way in 30 years. I've never wanted to be around a total jerk and am highly resistant to following their advice. I tend to refer to them as uncharismatic.
Politicians are charismatic. They have a commanding presence and tell you the lie that sounds best to their constituency. They're not jerks. They achieve power within their constituency by being astute and commanding and 'charismatic' about their constituency's agenda in a way that their constituency thinks 'how can the other side NOT like the way this guy is selling it!'
Selling snow to an eskimo is what being a politician is all about. Charming your constituency and trying your best to charm your opponents constituency as well.
Just because other constituencies have the opposite agenda doesnt mean anything. I may not like dick cheney's political agenda but the people who know him would tell you he's a very likable person and if I were in his social circle I'd probably enjoy his company even if we disagreed politically. I may even take advice he gives me that I'm hesitant about if he has the charisma to sell it to me in a way that sounds good to me.
Hitler didnt make it into office on the 'Genocide because of patriotism' plan.
Everyone was on board with patriotism and good for the country communism.
Only afterwards do you find out what a jerk he is and people started questioning his advice.
Charisma is entirely about how liked you are because even if you're a jerk, being likable is what makes people think you're being a jerk is for their own good, or is funny, or is cool.
I've never thought of a mousy person as having a low charisma... I actually find them quite charming.
"I know that guy is a total jerk/monster, but somehow when he asks me to do something for him I can't say 'no'".A woman who otherwise dislikes a guy's personality set/as a person yet finds herself persuaded out of her panties—sometimes more than once after knowing better—will attest to the truth of that last.
I'm pretty sure 'good looking' is the part of charisma scores that causes this phenominon.
Well, clearly theres also the possibility of 'gold digger' but I like to think of that as a charisma play as well. What you have is a person selling the concept of 'I have money and I share it with people I like'... You don't really need a high respectability or likability or charm or authority or presence or good looks or good grooming habits to sell that idea to certain people.
In terms of mousy I'd say mousy isnt causally determinant of charisma. I know mousy people who walk into a room where two chest thumping barbarians are getting ready to throw down and without saying a word, just the fact that she's there stops the drama in its tracks. She's 4 foot 11 and didn't say a word or flash a terrifying look, but everyone in the room heard a voice inside their head saying "how dare you".
Mousy can be good high charisma mousy with silent unmistakable power/presence or it can be low charisma wallflower disappears into the shadows mousy. Sassy can be fun funny cool sassy or it can be loud abrasive jewish grandmother sassy. Which can also be fun and funny or just plain grating and annoying. Theres a kind of obnoxious that I love, and theres a type of obnoxious that I hate. Charisma is in my mind what separates one from the other. It separates lewis black from miley cyrus. She can be thin and blonde and he can be old and angry (real or not) and I find him funny and her horrifying. She's loud and obnoxious but not likable enough to charm me across the isles.
I'm a heavy 40 year old man now but I'd like to think my charisma points are spent on being a pretty decent looking heavy 40 year old man who can be funny and kind and caring. The people who think I'm a jerk still tend to think I've got good motivations and I do. My charisma isn't particularly high but I can get along with just about anybody. I would say I have a powerful presence and people tend to take seriously what I have to say.
There's no doubt a jerk can have a high charisma score, but I personally can't see leadership being high without likability or respect being high first, so I think of charisma predominantly as being about likability or respectability, because some folks will listen to a guy they dont respect if they like him, and some people will listen to a guy they dont like if they respect him. But if you cant get in the like or respect door... thats not charisma.
That like or respect can come from, as I said above, the ability to sell to your audience, whether that means health, fitness, grooming, charm, presence, authority, wielding authority gently, sass, funny, any combination or all of the above or none of the above, but charisma is having that ability to change a persons thoughts or activities and that can be done with likeability (charm, looks, other reasons to be likable) or respect (presence,fear, other reasons to be respected), but not without at least one of the two. If you're not likeable or respectable, authority fizzles. At least for me anyway.
So for me the idea of saying a trait like looks (or strength to get back on topic) or any of those ambiguous likability traits or authority is the cause of high charisma is backwards thinking. Charisma score is the cause that determines the effects of whatever charismatic trait (likeability or respectability as a result of looks/authority/power/presence/charm/humor/etc) you bring to the table... even if that trait is a powerful but mousy presence.
This is where we note that average people are average on average, but as individuals they're usually not average. So the "average farmer" is average, but not typical.
In other words, most NPCs are not built on, say, 10 points. They're build on 3d6 points, so some farmers are just outright better than others.
Except they're not. They're all built on stat arrays you can find here.
A Farmer uses the Basic NPC array, which are the equivalent of 3 Point Buy (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
That says that this IS the typical farmer.
Heroic NPCs are built on 15 PB, by comparison.
Charisma isn't very solidly defined. Tarrasque has 14 Cha, but most wouldn't describe it as more "likeable" than an average farmer. "Force of personality" is the definition I've seen used a lot. 8 Cha might not mean you're dislikeable, just that people generally don't listen to you and you have difficulty getting them to think what you want.
Also ability scores are dumb, death to ability scores.
I think the reason I combine charisma into 'all the various forms of likeability' instead of just likeability or respectability is that I'd personally never like anyone I didn't respect and I'd also never respect anyone I didn't like enough to take orders from them...
But to the OP's point: I definitely dont respect or disrespect, like or dislike a person based on their strength.
In other words, most NPCs are not built on, say, 10 points. They're build on 3d6 points, so some farmers are just outright better than others.Except they're not. They're all built on stat arrays you can find here.
That says that this IS the typical farmer.
That's the point. You're claiming that EVERY SINGLE FARMER ON GOLARION has the same stats. I'm saying that they're all different. Which is more likely?
I think this is the scenario I'd refer to as having a high charisma. His charisma represents a likeability that isn't connected with his looks or eloquence or his commanding presence... He's just a good guy. I can see this happening quite frequently, but not with a character with a 6 in the charisma block.Uh-uh. Se that word "good" up there? There's a reason there's an alignment with the same name. Good guys are liked because they are, at least in public, good. There are charismatic leaders who are by no means good. Cha != alignment.
That's the point. You're claiming that EVERY SINGLE FARMER ON GOLARION has the same stats. I'm saying that they're all different. Which is more likely?
Unless you've redefined the words "average" and "typical" I have not said anything of the sort.
There may be the occasional farmer that has one more point in Cha and one less in Con or something, but they're the exception, not the norm.
But you're flat out wrong when you say NPCs are built on 3d6 dice rolling. NPCs are flat out NOT built on dice rolling. Ever.
The vast majority of PCs are built on 3 Point Buy (Basic, mostly noncombatants) or 15 Point Buy (Heroic, mostly monsters and "NPC Adventurers") with the occasional 20-25 PB thrown in for bosses.
I expect it is entirely true that all the examples in the books are indeed built on 3 or 15 or 20-25 point, and that Paizo don't throw dice to determine the stats for the next goon to feature in their forthcoming adventure. But to say that a farmer with cha or con 1 different to all his muddy brethren is an exception is just bizarre.
"Average" is a statistical thing, and fairly meaningless outside a population. I'm an average example of me, but I'm not an average example of British males (I'm much taller, for example). But I'm fairly typical, in that there's nothing particularly unusual about me.
I've certainly build NPCs by dice rolling. Why wouldn't you? OK, in PF it's much easier to grab them out of the book because chargen is such a pain, but it was a doddle in 1e.
I've certainly build NPCs by dice rolling.
That's your game. Your game has no bearing on how chargen happens for NPCs as a default in the Pathfinder ruleset.
Saying "most farmers are built on 3d6 rolling" is false except for in your games, and has no particular bearing on this discussion at all. Farmers could be built on 35 PB and with 3 Mythic tiers in my games and it wouldn't make a lick of difference in the fact that the average or typical farmer in Golarion has the class and stat allocations I listed.
Why wouldn't you?
Because I don't do rolled stats.
"Average" is a statistical thing, and fairly meaningless outside a population. I'm an average example of me, but I'm not an average example of British males (I'm much taller, for example). But I'm fairly typical, in that there's nothing particularly unusual about me.
There's a big difference between "an average" (in mathematical terms) and "an average X" (used in most other circumstances).
Average as a Mathematical or Statistical reference point is one of many definitions of average, and is a noun.
One of the definitions, and by far the most common when used colloquially, is "Usual or ordinary in kind or character", an adjective.
It fits perfectly well here. I don't see you disputing the word "Mean" in the thread title, so it doesn't make sense for you to give this treatment to the word average.
If you're gonna be pedantic you need to step up your game, mah boi. ;)